Archived threads in /p/ - Photography - 247. page

IGNORE THIS THREAD

IGNORE SONY/FUJI THREADS

THIS IS BAIT

>>2981088
this is a serious question m8.

>>2981085
> Image quality seems to be superior in Fuji from what I can tell.
Not even vs. this camera and they certainly don't beat FF Sony.

Regardless, use a better lens?

>>2981006
you should go back to the store with it

>>2981006
that's a rule of thumb, and a bad one. 1/18 s exposures won't freeze motion, for example. there are plenty of situations where you need to go to 1/500 or faster even.
as for your other question, look up the exposure triangle

heres one nice trick: kill yourself

>>2981003

i kiss my cameras and tell them they are the best ever.

Stuff the lenses up my daughter's ass.

>>2981015
same

>>2980992
Simple, I take photos nobody would ever want.

>>2980992
I only publish in relatively small size, so the photos aren't really useful for anything serious. I don't think of photography as work, it's my hobby, and I could never make money out of it around here anyway. Also I shoot most of my serious stuff on film, which means I can always produce the originals for proof if I see the need to dispute.

>that they have not copy righted
I don't know about the legislation in your shithole of a country, but around here copyright is a natural attribute of the photo which is established the moment it is created. Your photos are ALWAYS copyrighted to you unless you specifically state that you forfeit that right in publishing terms, as in declaring them public domain. This is why I never develop rolls I get along with used cameras, because the photos are still copyrighted to whoever originally took them, and even them forfeiting the camera and the roll inside it does not invalidate this.

>>2980992

the day someone steals my photos to get money out of them in their stock photo websites is the day i literally kill myself and then sell all my cameras.

anyone who has had to deal with such stuff should be aware that they are generic snapshitters and the blandest fuckers ever.

>>2980970
it's going to suck
if you could bring along a couple remote speedlights or something it might be okay but the conditions you decribe are garbage. the only places that would be even half-acceptably lit are narrow passages
bring a tripod too if you can manage it, but it doesn't sound like people will wait for you
if you are shooting handheld your camera better have good high ISO performance

>>2980977
Yeah, I know. But my editor has me down for photos with the story since the only actual photographer working today is busy shooting sports. My tentative plan is to underexpose by a couple of stops to emphasize the darkness. Thankfully I can get a way with a bit more high-ISO noise on newsprint. But this is still going to be a nightmare.

>>2980983
wait, this is for a story? they'd be idiots not to let you take the time to set something up, it's free advertising. I guess licensing for their own publicity photos is out of the question?

>>2980648
I agree with those people. The setting is beautiful, but there are two things I think are very detrimental:
1. the man's back is towards us. he might be feeling pious like the woman but his pose looks casual and disinterested
2. his head is covering up whatever interesting thing the monk might be doing

>>2980648
the framing is OK, althouh I would include more up top so it looks like a grander place and maybe the end of the supplicants' shadows. you know, convey a sense of wonder/awe. but the color? the reds are all fucked up, especially the stage. your speculars are very harsh, which is characteristic of snapshits where you don't control the light ratio. the monk's expression is kind of weird, and you can't see what he's doing. and the blue guy's face is not visible and his pose is awkward. there's also a few in-shot things that make it feel mundane, the fan, the plastic box, the shitty red reflection over the marble tile. this basically looks like a tourist snap with really nice light.

>>2980657
>>2980654
it is exactly that.

A snapshit, but a snapshit i love

>I just got a free year of VSCO X

WOOP DE DOO

Image filters. Literally no better than any other image filter package on earth. /p/ used to have a hardon for it for no particular reason other than that it was quite hard to pirate. That was literally it. Nothing special at all, you can get better filters from alienware or even Tiffen.

>>2980601
vsco's pretty cool

>>2980606
VSCO X is for the mobile app. They have film simulation filters on mobile now. I think it's pretty cool if I can get a Fuji 400H-looking image straight out of my smartphone, if it proves to be accurate enough. It might be useful, for instance, to show your clients how the photos will look like before you process your film shots.

That nose looks awful to me in the end

The first big tip that helped me was using gaussian blur on the masks after painting on them to soften things up a bit and blend better.

The first "easy mode" D/B was creating two layers with cooies kf the image and setting one to Screen blending mode and the other to multiply.

The latter is not ideal for a number of reasons but will help you resist being too aggressive with curves.

More advanced stuff comes using luminosity masks and channels to create D/B layers. I never mastered it but wow.

>>2979569
I really love using either two masked curve adjustment layers or using the 50% grey layer method.

>>2979627
I love you, Bart, but those methods just fuck with texture way too much.

To me it absolutely is.

Lightroom is the big one for me, not because of its RAW processing but because of its cataloging, tagging, and organizing features. It's a billion times easier than manually sorting everything into folders.

If you're the kind of person who actually prefers manually sorting things, though, you might not get a lot out of LR as compared to another RAW processing software.

Other things that make me pay for the Adobe suite are Photoshop's Content Aware tools, which are incredibly useful and powerful, and both programs' compatibility with plugins and external software. (I'm a big fan of the Nik suite, which is now free thanks to Google's buyout earlier this year, and which is a great set of plugins and programs.)

>>2979472
No for both.

DXO Optics Pro
Corel Aftershot Pro
Phase One Capture One
Photoninja
On1 Photo Raw

There are probably 5-6 more options for RAW editors that I don't remember right now, maybe someone else can add more.

And on the open sauce side: Darktable and Krita

>>2979499
>Lightroom is the big one for me, not because of its RAW processing but because of its cataloging, tagging, and organizing features. It's a billion times easier than manually sorting everything into folders.
Are there any other software that offer the same level of cataloguing and editing capabilities, and if so, are they better or worse in those features?

>>2979155

it should be fine.

I buy "factory refurbished" stuff all the time and its usually in excellent condition.

>>2979155
I bought a pentax limited 20-40 from them at nearly half the price, and it turned out well. I imagine it's just stuff they get from returns. If anything, amazon's really good about returns.

>>2979155
>Has anyone tried this
photobooks? yeah i..
>for equipment?
KILL YOURSELF GEARFAGGOT.

thanks for the tip, didn't know that

This is great.

Way back, I did this and saw with my 24-105mm, it was all 24, 35, 50, 105. Almost nothing in between them.

Same with 70-300mm. It was 70, 135, 300.

Convenient, but still "thinking in prime terms"

>>2979142
>look at software everyone on p is familiar
Kys

File: venus_optics_laowa_15mm_f_4_macro_1165599.jpg (121KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1000x1000px

I was just made aware of the Venus/LAOWA 15mm macro lens.

I mainly do macro photography and this seems very useful.

What's the catch though? Soft and chromabs?

>>2979128
From what I've seen it is a nice lens with a very small working distance for macro, but the shifting mechanism makes up for it.
There's nothing like an up close nature shot from a bugs eye view, all straight.
Venus is doing a funky long thin stick-like macro lens for shy wildlife, you should check that out too, it can do some interesting angles like in those food porn flicks.

>>2979128
I don't think there is a catch. Thing is very sharp, not sure about chromabs though. Either way, chromabs take about 10 seconds to remove.

full frame is a meme, get a micro four thirds.

>>2978092
Surely you jest.

Budget?

Favourite focal lengths?

Boudoir shots?

>>2977931
In ten years, that's one of your favourite pictures ever? Gee whiz, I can't see why it took you this long to sell a print.

>>2977961
lets see your dank ass prints then pal.

keep up the good work op i like it

>>2977972
fuck that, you show your prints. If you're impressed by a bottle of whisky on a bar table with some bokeh you're clearly a fucking retard who's opinion is worth less than nothing.

why would there be.

How the fuck are you going to control delicate brush strokes and gradients with your cheeto covered thumb nubs.

Get a PC you cheap bastard.

Yes, Lightroom is available for Android.

>>2977590
What? No it isn't.

Tablets aren't powerful enough to edit photos yet, I don't know what the fuck you're injecting.